Filed: Sep. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1332 ZARA ELLIS SADLER, PHD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARBARA CLAIRE TILLEY, PHD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:05-cv-03234-DCN) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zara Ellis Sadler, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1332 ZARA ELLIS SADLER, PHD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARBARA CLAIRE TILLEY, PHD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:05-cv-03234-DCN) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zara Ellis Sadler, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1332
ZARA ELLIS SADLER, PHD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BARBARA CLAIRE TILLEY, PHD,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:05-cv-03234-DCN)
Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zara Ellis Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Dawes Cooke, Jr.,
Lucinda Gardner Wichmann, John William Fletcher, Alissa DeCarlo,
BARNWELL, WHALEY, PATTERSON & HELMS, LLC, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zara Ellis Sadler seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying her motion for appointment of counsel. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Sadler seeks to appeal
is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We also deny Sadler’s motion for appointment of
counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -